The Tocharian Imperfect

Krause and Thomas list the following Common Tocharian imperfects (1960:217): TB 'to go' TA TB 'to be' TA l sg. yaim yem saim, seym sem 2sg. ya.it yet sait set 3 sg. yai, ycy yes sai, sey ses 1 pi. yeyern *yemas seyem semäs 2 pi. yaicer, yeycer *yec saicer, seycer *sec 3 pi. yeyem, yem yefïc seyem, sem seiic

These paradigms are generally derived from the PIE. optative (e. g., Pedersen 1941: 206, Lane 1953: 279, Pinauk 1989: 128, Klingen- schmitt 1994: 406, Winter 1994: 294). Other verbs show different formations (cf. Krause & Thomas 1960: 218-221): - TB i-imperfects of present stem classes I-IV and V1I-XII, e. g. act. 3 pi. priyem to par- 'to carry' (thematic present), l sg. klyatisim to klyaus- 'to hear'(thematic present), mid. 3 pi. kraiipiyentar to kraiip- 'to collect' (thematic present), act. 3 sg. aissi to ai- 'to give' (j£-present), 3 sg. wessi to we- 'to say' (sk- present), 3sg. kälpässi to kälp- 'to obtain' (sk-present), 3 pi. Ikasyem to lak- 'to see' (sk- present); - TB ojy-imperfects of present stem classes V and VI, e. g. mid. 3 pi. Ikoyentar to lak- 'to see' (<ï-present), act. 3 pi. kärsanoyem to kärs- 'to know' (nä- present), l sg. tcirkanoyrn to tdrk- 'to release' (na- present); - TA a-imperfects of present stem classes I-XII, e. g. act. 3 sg. kenä to ken- 'to call" (thematic present, preterit kak), 3 sg. klyosä to klyos- 'to hear' (thematic present, preterit klyos), 3sg. esä, 3 pi. esär to e- 'to give' (s-present, preterit was), 3sg. kctiyä to kar- 'to laugh' (ye-present), 3 sg. kätänsä to kätk- 'to stand up' (wa-present, preterit kätäk), mid. 3sg. kropnät to krop- 'to collect' (nä- present, pretent kropat); - TA d-imperfects of subjunctive sterns, which are veiy few and hard

T list. Sprachforsrh. 109, 169 174, ISSN 0935 3518 O Vaiulunliocck K Ruprcrlit IWfc 170 Frederik Kortlandt

to analyze; in fact, these forms are probably basecl on unattested present formations (cf. Lane 1953: 281); - TA imperfects derived from the root, which is the root of the present stem in the case of suppletive paradigms. Krause and Thomas mention the following instances (1960: 221, cf. Pedersen 1941: 174): (1) act. 3 pi. särsar to kan- 'to know' («J-present, preterit 3sg. särs, 3 pi. krasar, mid.3sg. kä'rsät), mid. 3sg. sälpat to kälp- 'to obtain' (nä- present, preterit 3 sg. kälpät), act. 3 pi. cärkar, mid,3sg. cärkat to tärk- 'to release' (nä- present, preterit 3sg. cärk, 3 pi. tarkar), mid. 3sg. parat, 3 pi. pärant to par- 'to carry' (thematic present, preterit 3 sg. kämat), act. 3sg. lyäk, 3 pi. lydkar to lak- 'to see' (J-present, preterit 3sg. pdlkät), mid. 3 pi. säkant to tsäk- 'to pull out' (nä- present, preterit 3 pi. tsakar, mid. 3sg. tskät}; (2) act. 3 sg. crankäs, 3 pi. crankär to tränk- 'to say' (athetnatic present, preterit 3sg. we, wend-, 3 pi. wenär), act. 3 pi. sepär to tsip- 'to dance' (athematic present). It is generally assumed that the TA J-imperfect must be connected with the Stative -ë-verbs of other Indo-Huropean languages (e. g., Pe- dersen 1941: 179, Lane 1953: 285), with *-ë- yielding Tocharian -ä- in open syllables (cf. Kortlandt 1988: 80). This explains the palatalization of the preceding consonant. The same formation i,s found in the preterit, e. g. 3sg. TA klyos, TB klyausa 'heard'. While Pedersen does not doubt that these pretents are "dem Urspiimge nach Imper- fekta" (1941: 190), Lane thinks that all TA imperfects except ye- 'go' and se- 'be' are "in origin identical with preterit formations" which are "all derived from IE perfects and aorists" (1953: 278). The latter view cannot be correct because the development of an imperfect mto an aorist is commonplace but "der umgekehrte Vorgang, Übergang eines gewöhnlichen Aorists zu imperfektischer Funktion, kommt nicht vor" (Pedersen 1941: 175). In fact, Pedersen argues that the ä-imperfect was preserved beside the /-imperfect in TB 3sg. yamassit, 3pl. yamassare, mid. 3sg. yamassate 'made' (1941:181), with durative meaning, as distinct from the frequentative /-imperfect yamassi, yamassitär. Similarly, the TA preterit wenä- beside we 'said' may be compared with Russian ipf. govoril "seine Worte waren" beside pf. skazal "er sprach die Worte aus", and the TA preterit klyos beside the imperfect klyosä 'heard' with Russian slysal, "wo wir den Vorgang perfektiv auffassen" (Pedersen 1941: 175). It follows that Tocharian A is more archaic than Tocharian B in the formation of the imperfect. The Tocharian Imperfect 171

Interestingly, the TA 3 sg. preterit endings -ä and zero reflect the original distinction between imperfect and preterit. The former ending is found with a-imperfects and with preterits of classes IV and V, which are derived from sk- and w-stem formations, whereas the latter ending is limited to root imperfects, which will be discussed below, and preterits of classes I-III and VI, which reflect perfects and aorists. The difference between imperfect klyosä and preterit klyos 'heard' is strongly reminiscent of the one between Old Church Slavic imperfect slysaase and aorist slysa, with loss of the final vowel in Tocharian A. Klsewhere I have derived the Slavic imperfect from a nominal form in *-ê- followed by the perfect of the verb 'to be' (1986). In a similar vein, we may attribute the preservation of the TA imperfect ending -ä to the former presence of a verbal clitic. It seems probable to me that this clitic has left a tracé in the l sg. ending -wa, perhaps from *hhwê-, which serves to disambiguate the ending from 3sg. -a. Thus, I think that the TB i -imperfect is at least partly the result of an innovation. As a mie, the i-imperfect is derived from the present stem in the same way as the Tocharian optative is derived from the subjunctive stem. The o;y-imperfect is the i-imperfect of sterns in a laryngeal. It presupposes an earlier formation in *-o < *-a-, The former existence of an oy- optative in Tocharian A is indicated by the lack of palatalization in 3sg. täkis 'were', kanis 'knew' (cf. Pedersen 1941: 203). The original formation is reflected in TA yä 'went' beside i- 'to go', TB iyam 'goes about', imperfect ïyoy, cf. Skt. yä- beside i- 'to go', Lith. jóti 'to ride'. It thus appears that the i-imperfect developed from the iterative use of a present optative and replaced an earlier imperfect which was partly preserved in Tocharian A. In fact, the modal use of the TB present optative has been preserved in a number of instances (cf. Pedersen 1941: 206). The TB i-subjunctive must also be derived from an earlier optative (cf. Lane 1959: 166), e. g. l sg. wsiyaii '(will) stay', cf. wsassam 'stays'. The TB "intensive preterit" is formally a preterit of an i-subjunctive, e. g. 3sg. wsïya 'stayed' or 'would stay', Against this background, it is improbable that the Common Tocha- rian imperfects of the verbs 'to go' and 'to be' represent original optatives. Such a derivation is also difficult from a morphological point of view because the vocahsm of TA ye-, se-, TB yai-, yey-, sai-, sey- requires *-oi-, which is unattested in Tocharian. The expected reflexes of the PIH. optatives of *ei- and *es- in Tocharian would have yielded *iyä-, *syä-, and undoubtedly have joined the d-flexion and 172 I-rederik Kortlandt not have been replaced by a unique Formation in -ey- on the basis of an unknown model. It is much more probable that the attested paradigms are what one expects them to be, viz. original imperfects. What are the expected reflexes of the original imperfects? Consider the following paradigms: Vedic Indo-European Proto-Tocharian \ sg. äyam^ *ênn *yëy 2 sg. ais *êis *yêy 3 sg. ai t *cit *yêy \ pi. aima *ëime *yêym 2 pi. aita *ëite *yêyc 3 pi. äyan *ëient *yêyn < *yayn

This is a perfect reconstruction of the Proto-Tocharian paradigm for the verb 'to go'. In the case of the verb 'to be', the paradigm was evidently remodeled by substituting sey- for sg. *yës, *yê, pi. *yës- < *ês-. It follows that we can reconstruct the augment in Tocharian, as we can in Germanic (cf. Kortlandt 1995: 138). The derivation of TA ye- and se-, TB yey- and sey- from PIE. augmented imperfects proposed here now offers an explanation for the origin of the TA root imperfects särs- of kan- 'to know', sälp- of kälp- 'to obtain', cärk- of tärk- 'to release', par- of par- 'to carry', lyäk- of lak- 'to see', sak- of tsäk- 'to pull out', crank- of tränk- 'to say', sep- of t sip- 'to dance', all of which seem to reflect a palatalizing long root vowel -c-. The development is pho- netically regulär in the last five verbs (cf. Kortlandt 1988: 80) and may be either analogical or conditioned by the following tautosyl- labic resonant in the first three. The last two verbs, where *-ë- did not shift to -ä-, joined the flexion of the sigmatic aorist. The long root vowel evidently arose on the analogy of *yêy- and * sey- at an early stage of Proto-Tocharian. The development is analogous to the rise of long vowel pretents m Latin and Germanic on the basis of such perfects as *êd-, *ém-, *ëp- (cf. Kortlandt 1992: 104). Only in this sense may we compare TA lyäk 'saw' with Latin lêgï and TA parat 'carried' with Gothic herum (cf. Pedersen 1941: 176 and Lane 1953: 282). The theory advanced here also provides an explanation for the di- screpancy between the causative (class II) pretents of Tocharian A and B, which must be derived from the PIE. reduplicated aorist (cf. Pedersen 1941: 187, Krause & Thomas 1960: 244), e. g. TA 3sg. cacäl to tal- 'to raise', 2sg. sasräst to t sar- 'to split', 3sg. lyalyäm, lyalymä- The locharian Imperfect 173 to lam- 'to set', which point to *têtl- , *dêdr-, *lêlm-, also 3sg. kakäl to kal- 'to endure' with restoration of the initial consonant (cf. Win- ter 1980: 561), b ut TB 3 sg. cäla < *têl-, 3sg. tsyära with recent tsy-, miei. 3sg. lyämate < *lèm- with recent stress on the initial syllable. The latter forms are clearly innovations and may have been modeled after the root imperfects when these had become pretents in Tocha- rian B. The reduplicated Formation survived in TB 3sg. yaika < *wêwik-, TA wawik 'removed', and in the participle, e. g. TB ficnmii < *nënm-, TA nanmu to näm- 'to bow', also TB scescamii, TA sasmu < *stêstm- 'put', cf. with a restored initial consonant TB kekarnu, TA kakmu < *gègm- 'come', as opposed to TB papekii < *papeku < *pêpokwös, TA pakku < *pèpk- 'boiled'. It appears that the reduplication vowel is TB -c-, TA -a- in original aorists and TB -a-, TA -ä- in original perfects, cf. TB pasparttan, causative pespirttu < *(s)pêsp(e)rtwös 'turned', but TA säspärtwu, causative säspärtwsH with analogical vocalism. It follows that TB paspärttau may represent *- spertw- < *-sportw-, with the same lowering as in the TA imperfects särs- 'knew' and cark- 'released'. When the imperfects becarne preterits, they formed participles with the reduplication vowel of the aorist, not the perfect, cf. TB lyelyku to 3sg. lyäka 'saw', keklyaiisu to klyausa 'heard', wewenu to wena < *woknê 'said', TA kaklyusu, wewnu. As this reduplication is irregulär from a synchronic point of view (cf. Krause & Thomas 1960: 238, 242), it follows that aorist and perfect were separate categories when these participles were created. The imperfective aorists which developed from earlier imperfects may have been preserved as a distinct category in Proto-Tocharian, as they were in Slavic, e. g. OCS. slysa, TA klyos 'heard'. When the root imperfects were ousted by i -imperfects in Tocharian B, they resembled the reduplicated preterits formally by the palatalization of the initial consonant and semantically by their Opposition to the simple preterits. As Pedersen has pointed out, the meaning of the Indo-European reduplicated aorist is not only causative but also that of "einer als abgeschlossen vorgestellten Wiederholung", i.e. an imperfective aorist, e. g. Greek (e)péplêgon "brachten durch wiederhol- tes Schlagen zustande" (1941: 177). The former root imperfect there- fore provided a suitable model for an elimination of the reduplication in the preterit, e.g. TB cäla 'raised', särsa 'let know', TA cacäl, sasärs. The original root imperfect was preserved as a preterit in TB lyäka, lyakä- 'saw' (not 'let see'), lyawä- 'rubbed'. I agree with Lane that "the long-vowel preterits and imperfects in question have m origin nothing to do with the reduplicated forms" but disagree with bis view 174 I rederik Kortlandt of "a developing category of imperfects" in Tocharian A (1953: 282, 283). The accentuation of the causative preterit in Tocharian B shows that it is a recent formation.

Cobetstraat 24 Frederik Kortlandt NL-2313 KC Leiden

References

Khngenschmitt, G. (1994): Das Tocharische in indogennamstischer Sicht, locha- riich: Akten der Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft (= Tocharian and Indo-Luropcan Studies, supplementär/ series 4, Reykjavik), 310-411. Kortlandt, F. (1986)- The origin of the Slavic impeifcct, Festschrift ßir Herbert Brauer /um 65. Gehaltstag am 14. April 1986 (Bohlau Verlag, Köln - Wien), 253-258. Kortlandt, I-. (1988): On the dcvelopment of PIL. final syllables in Tocharian, 'l'ochanan and Indo-Einopean Studies (Reykjavik) 2, 80-88. Kortlandt, F. (1992): Fhe Germanic fifth class of strong verhs, North- Western F.uropean I.angmigc Evolution (Odense University Press) 19, 101-107. Kortlandt, I. (1995): The Germanic fourth class of weak verbs, North- Western Eiiropean Language Evolution (Odense University Press) 25, 137-139. Krause, W. & Thomas, W. (1960): locharisches Elementarbuch I: Grammatik (Carl Winter, Heidelberg). Lanc, G.S. (1953): Imperfect and preterit in Tocharian, language 29, 278-287. Lane, G.S. (1959): The formation of the Tocharian subjunctive, Language 35, 157-179. Pedersen, H (1941): lochansch vom Gesichtspunkt dci indoeuropäischen Sprachver- gleichung (hjnar Munksgaard, K0benhavn). Pmault, G. (1989): Introduction au tokharicn, I-ALIKS: Actes des sesswns de lin- guistiijue et de litterature d'Aussois (Presses de l'Lcole normale supérieure, Paris) 7, 5-224. Winter, W. (1980): /um Beitrag der tocharischcn Sprachen ?u Problemen der lautlichen Rekonstruktion des Indogermanischen, Laittgeschichte und Etymolo- gie: Akten dc-r Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft (Reichert Verlag, Wiesbaden), 542-563. Winter, W. (1994): /um tocharischen Verb, 'iochansch: Akten der Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft (= Tocharian and Indo-European Studies, supplcmenUry series 4, Reykjavik), 284-309.